Kinda depends on the source material and the quality of your system. All the SACD, HDMI 1.3A and Audyssey EQ available won't make a poor recording (hi-res or otherwise) played through a mediocre sytem sound like the real thing. Give me a good recording played back on a high quality stereo system over that any day.

Agreed. But, I am not talking about crap recordings. I do not have any more time for them than you do. If you compare the very best 2-channel to the very best hi-rez multichannel, my opinion is that there is no contest. Hi-rez multichannel wins.

The fact is nothing is perfect. There are some multichannel SACD's that are second rate because the recording or mastering process was not done well. I cannot tell you how many second-rate CD'ds and LP's I own. It's a lot. But, this is totally irrelevant to what I am talking about. I am talking about capabilities as evidenced by the very best of each genre.

Kinda depends on the source material and the quality of your system. All the SACD, HDMI 1.3A and Audyssey EQ available won't make a poor recording (hi-res or otherwise) played through a mediocre sytem sound like the real thing. Give me a good recording played back on a high quality stereo system over that any day.

Rookie question regarding high end pre-pro: if you purchase a quality processor with good internal dacs and video processing; how does it improve the signal if you have a very good BD source; or digital source allready? Does it make sense to pass thru the signal to the amp if you have a good incoming digital signal; or are there benefits to have that signal further processed? Should they all be run in via hdmi; with its attendant problems of jitter, noice; or via quality cables? Or to bring it down to basics; where is the best bang for buck spent to optimize signal path for sound and video output? thanks.

Rookie question regarding high end pre-pro: if you purchase a quality processor with good internal dacs and video processing; how does it improve the signal if you have a very good BD source; or digital source already? Does it make sense to pass thru the signal to the amp if you have a good incoming digital signal; or are there benefits to have that signal further processed? Should they all be run in via hdmi; with its attendant problems of jitter, noice; or via quality cables? Or to bring it down to basics; where is the best bang for buck spent to optimize signal path for sound and video output? thanks.

With Digital Blu ray for video you want pass through direct no messing around with processing, for audio if you use DD tru HD or DTS HD Master audio it should also be pass through with no messing around. Now for DVD and regular CDs you might want the best DACs you can offer, I believe that is what Classé had in mind when they designed their SSP-800. We will hear how it works

Rookie question regarding high end pre-pro: if you purchase a quality processor with good internal dacs and video processing; how does it improve the signal if you have a very good BD source; or digital source allready? Does it make sense to pass thru the signal to the amp if you have a good incoming digital signal; or are there benefits to have that signal further processed? Should they all be run in via hdmi; with its attendant problems of jitter, noice; or via quality cables? Or to bring it down to basics; where is the best bang for buck spent to optimize signal path for sound and video output? thanks.

Short answer: get a BR player without analog outs and hook it to your pre/pro – Integra DTC 9.8/9.9 or better, if there is such a thing (I doubt it) – via HDMI 1.3a. You will get undoubtedly get the best quality, and certainly the best bang for the buck this way. Your player will then not have a lot of useless duplication of capabilities already better implemented in the pre/pro.

Note that even BR players that decode the lossless 7.1 codecs do not output this in
7.1. They output the “core” Dolby or DTS in 5.1 using the low bit rate, older versions of their format. So, the sound via analog out from the player is going to be much worse. You need HDMI to get the full sonic benefits of BR. It’s the only way.

Jitter has really not been a major problem for quite some time, even though the audiophile magazines keep writing about it for some reason. It was for quite awhile in Redbook CD, but digital quality keeps improving at an immensely higher rate than analog. Old audiophile beliefs die hard.

Noise is much worse in analog transmission. If this were not so, telephone companies would not have converted to digital transmission as they did years ago. EMI and RFI just do not affect well engineered digital transmission like they do all analog transmission.

If jitter and noise were a problem, we would really see it on the video side, which requires hugely more bandwidth than the audio side. I do not know anyone who thinks analog component interconnect is a better video connection than digital HDMI. If they do, they are a little wacko, in my opinion. The exception to this is manufacturers and dealers who sell super high end stuff, which is embarrassingly far behind the Asian HT main stream in technology, like HDMI 1.3A, among many others. They are not wacko, they are either greedy or just plain liars.

thanks for both of the above replies....I'm taking home that I should run a quality hdmi 1.3 cable from my BD source into my new hd audio compliant processor; then run one hdmi 1.3 cable into the back of my 1080p rear projection tv for best audio and video. I'll be utilizing the best of the BD player; and processor; and TV for all worlds; and run it on 24 frames at 120 hz on the tv monitor....

I will wait until after cedia and find a new bd player that is configured for the new 2.0 version....and hopefully find a new high end pre-pro that can handle this format; hopefully something less expensive than the Krell evo 707. It sounds that I should consider the Halcro 220 as best bet at this time...I really appreciate the help and feedback.